A64002:1661
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessels of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entitled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two books, the first being a refutation of the said book, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hord's discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceals his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twice ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twice from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeans ...The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...
Oxford: printed by L.L. and H.H. for Tho. Robinson, 1653
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. Who mistakes the nature of permission most, we or this censurer, let the indifferent judge. It is apparent that he puts no difference between permission humane, and permission Divine. Sure I am Suarez requires to permission divine a concurrence to the act, the obliquity whereof is permitted. And more then that both Scotus of old without question, and the Dominicans of late, and Bradwardine before them maintain this concurrence to be by way of determining the will to every act thereof. But all these mistake the nature of permission, if we believe this Author upon his word wherein he carrieth himself very authoritatively, no Pope like him. Yet he is ready to give his reason for it, though with manifest contradiction to himself, but let us consider it.
2. Who mistakes the nature of permission most, we or this censurer, let the indifferent judge. It is apparent that he puts no difference between permission humane, and permission Divine. Sure I am Suarez requires to permission divine a concurrence to the act, the obliquity whereof is permitted. And more then that both Scotus of old without question, and the Dominicans of late, and Bradwardine before them maintaine this concurrence to be by way of determining the will to every act thereof. But all these mistake the nature of permission, if we believe this Authour upon his word wherein he carrieth himselfe very authoritatively, no Pope like him. Yet he is ready to give his reason for it, though with manifest contradiction to himselfe, but let us consider it.
1. Permission is an act of God's consequent and judiciary will, by which he punisheth men for abusing their freedom &c. Most untrue, and manifestly convictable of untruth by that which himself delivered but a little before in this very Section, where he said, It is true that God hath decreed to suffer sin; for otherwise there would be none. By this it is manifest that whensoever sin is committed, there had place God's permission of sin, otherwise there would have been no sin, therefore permission had place in the very first sin that was committed by man, and Angels. Judge Reader with what felicity he comes to censure and correct the mistakes of others about permission. As Austin sometimes said of one opposing him, noverit se esse obduratum; so mayest thou not say of this Author in this discourse of his, noverit se esse excaecatum, let him take notice how himself is blinded? The Lord giving Israel up to their own hearts lusts; he like a resolute Doctor will have to proceed by way of mere permission. Yet the Lord saith not, he permitted